Wikileaks - The Proposition - The Stakes

There is a very considered comment of the video's content by youtube member 65eyes. I messaged him/her and asked for approval to post it here and it was kindly granted. Although 65eyes' post is somewhat critical, I thought it worthwhile to post it here for further discussion:

while i feel very sympathetic towards the motives and ideology of your effort to explain, i feel the notion of gatekeeping isn't really explained too well as it brings in ideology while basically the notion doesn't need that. "gatekeeping" can be described as the process of filtering information that will distributed. There are practical, non-ideological reasons for this.

Of course it would be naive to think the reasons given for the actual selection aren't reflecting other interests other than trying to inform an audience as adequate as possible. As an ex-editor-in-chief i can tell about corporate interests filtering out critical information that might "hurt the brand".

but then again your message isn't about the meaning of a word, it's about a momentum that might turn out to be pivotal for the next phase of the internet. while i feel optimism in your analysis, i have to admit i don't share that optimism ... from a technical point of view it is indeed almost impossible to have total realtime control over the whole web.

this however isn't really necessary to maintain control. It is sufficient to create a body of law, create some moral panic and set some examples to isolate activists from sheep. And we all know when a predator hits: when the victim is isolated.

btw. i lurk on ats.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Thanks for sharing that.

This part is important:

...from a technical point of view it is indeed almost impossible to have total realtime control over the whole web.

this however isn't really necessary to maintain control. It is sufficient to create a body of law, create some moral panic and set some examples to isolate activists from sheep. And we all know when a predator hits: when the victim is isolated.

So remember: there's safety in numbers!

...Michael Crichton's "Prey" has some great info and analyses of predator/prey behavior, and especially, survival behaviors for prey.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Dude you are allagorically on the money with that train of thought,so short releases so people don`t get saturated with to much stuff that can`t easily be disseminated,I just hope this is a geniune movement to reveal biased and revealing information that we can truly say is not a fraud,so he and his cohorts can get some fancy houses and islands.
I await to see,my eye is watching.

Originally posted by gringoboy
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

I just hope this is a geniune movement to reveal biased and revealing information that we can truly say is not a fraud,so he and his cohorts can get some fancy houses and islands.

Well, I'll gladly concede them having beach houses if their intentions prove to be earnest.

Truth is, gatekeeping it is really more about us, the people, standing up and demanding the free flow of information that would keep OUR governments honest ... or at least fearful that there's is a realistic chance that they will be found out when they lie and obfuscate. Wkileaks in this case is a catalyst and not the end all by any long shot ... what we are seeing emerging is a thirst for this information and resulting accountability. New whistleblower websites are about to pop up and the more the better. That way, should Wikileaks or any other one prove themselves to be frauds or acting as gatekeepers, the others will keep them in check.

It has the possibility to be the New Internet Order ... without gatekeepers, and one that is finally reflecting of the freedoms we desire. But it won't happen if we don't stand up for it.

Greetings S Dog! Nice to see your face.
Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself so well.
As always your thoughts are coherent and intelligent.

The POSSIBILITY of paradigm change is upon us, and you are quite right - these are interesting times!

Surely you must realize that the current economic/political order will not go down quietly or without a fight.
What's important is to understand how and with what they will fight to preserve the old order.
Remember, these are the same people who start wars when they're not even desperate.
The PTB are capable of anything to save their power and position.

There is enough wealth in the world for everyone to live comfortably, have enough to eat, get an education and
pursue their dreams.

We must assert ourselves and our needs (freedom/justice/integrity) and demand nothing less.
It is critical that the people stand together in honesty, compassion and fraternity
If we divide ourselves they've already won.

Cheers. ATA

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Just so you know, I was one of those afraid to put my name on the dotted line and support the Avaaz petition against the attempted muzzling of Wikileaks. I was afraid it amounted to putting my name on the list for governmental retaliation.

My fear was overtaken by reason after listening to you. Thanks. I signed the petition.

Now we have taken our positions. Let the struggle commence.

I like the term... "New Internet Order" or NIO.

The NIO could become a MAC-Address roots movement (perhaps a Root-kit movement, if you will?)

Here's the idea, the core of the matter, if you will.

Authorities objective::

1 - Have the power to prevent information exchange at their whim.
Note to apologists: This is not to say that such power would be exercised as a personal whim. But since the public lack of redress and notice is a given, it is effectively exactly that. Having this ability would mean that as they identify (or deem) targets, those targets can be removed from the Internet, instantly, and without resistance or accountability, in particular if the cause for removal may expose secrets to public scrutiny.
Note to the adversarial: This means that there would be exactly zero possibility to both knowing a target has been eliminated from the Internet, and the reason why it was removed. Also, it means that an infrastructure must exists which allows users to be identified as persons.

2 - Have the unquestioned authority to designate what information is proscribed from public dissemination, as well as the ability to identify breaches instantly. Neither the sender, nor the receiver need not be known before action can be taken to remove either or both from the Internet.

3 - Have the power to act preemptively, with no intercession or remedy stopping the action until after the potential leak is squelched.

These three objectives, are to be considered in light of definitions such as: Classification is the sole purview of our government, only the government itself can review, and declassify information. Only the government knows the nature, scope, breadth; and even the existence of the information being compartmentalized. Lacking such knowledge of classification, the public can have no means of redress. "Elected" representative remain figures of the public, and as such have no authority to change the construct which keeps information secret.

In order for that scenario to play out, there can no longer be such a thing as a 'warrant' requirement in cases where classified information is related to crimes and criminal prosecution. Lacking warrant requirements, all actions relating to such cases will become 'defacto' pre-judged upon execution of action.

Now the flip side:

Some Internet users want:

1 - The ability to speak with each other, say and express their thoughts to whatever audience they please
2 - To have unhindered access to become audience to whomever they please, without need for a third party to assess (or infer) the nature of the interest
3 - To not be subject to retaliation or consequence for the inferences of others based on the existence of communications
4 - To not be monitored or recorded without informed consent of all potential consequences of such record-keeping.
5 - To have as a given unimpeachable right, the ability to use any available medium of communication for free expression without threat to their well being.
6 - The right of the individual to ownership of any information which is undeniably an adjunct to the individual's existence.
7 - The right of people to gather, analyze, and disseminate information as they see fit, without fear of inference.

And separately,

8 - The right of the people to receive a reasonable and acceptable answer to inquiries of the holders of information. The nature of all queries to the government require direct and subservient response; as the government serves the people. This right cannot be abridged by the rationale of any individual, any transaction with the government of the United States is, by definition PUBLIC information, and as such, cannot be held without a contradiction to the law.


Rather than elaborate further, I invite you to attempt to marry the two......

Hint: Without Total Personal Sovereignty - we cannot expect freedom to persist unrestricted....

reply to post by Maxmars


It is all possible but over time users will start to notice that all subject matter on the net is newt,however in inverse what will anyone be able to do about it if communication about those views would be scrutinised and elimenated.there would obviously be some civil unrest Like much that is already going on,I don`t think they will overtly allow anyone to know they are doing it,as information is allways power,although dangerous users will be targeted as assange is being.I still hold a view that ultimately a agenda is afoot to allow internet monitoring on a level there has never been.More jobs for the boys,like new internet task forces Etc...that will propose ideas for internet non neutrality,like continental licencing,where by to access net in US,europe,russia,asia, you will need to licence yourself with personal information related to census polls.Its a bit like old king herod on a baby-hunt,really don`t think that would be implausable.Net neutrality is on the horizon

reply to post by schrodingers dog



There is a newfound, corporate supplied risk for us to consider: cloud computing. Apple has thrown the idea around for awhile, and the new Google OS is all about "cloud computing". Microsoft is considering it, as well, and when you buy a new OEM PC you get a "free trial" to an online data storage.

I can imagine no greater threat to the freedom of information than cloud computing. To the point that i just may fully convert my PC network to GNU OS's. I am a HUGE fan of Ubuntu, and i bet it would work like a dream on this laptop (the last PC i have that runs Windoze).

I saw this coming as a problem when Apple started in on the "App Store"model. Apple seems to want to control every aspect of the device you purchase from them. It has made them enough money that now it is becoming the preferred business model. Like the modern version of a coin operated computer.

I am perfectly happy purchasing my external memory by the terabyte.

PERFECT!

PERSPECTIVE at its FULLEST and WIDEST *****

Thank you SDog

Time we navigate under a clear perspective for once.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Just found this thread.

I don't know if this has been said, but what they are trying to stop and what is at stake is that we have the potential to all become our own gatekeepers.
When the traditional gates Sdog refers to come down, we perform the duty for ourselves. We will seek information, we will filter the information, we will present the information or discuss it or report on it and even distribute it.

Wiki has effectively targeted the one of, if not the biggest Gate Keeper in the "free" world, The USA.

We cannot let this moment slip.
Revolution evolution, it has moved with the times and is now beginning online.

SDog, Assange is a monkey who took to the stairs.

Hopefully not to far off subject but...What if...anyone on public payroll be required to wear the "public service cam" for their entire shift or at the very least eight hours a day minus breaks. It would greatly reduce the opportunity for evil and shed light in some shadowy corners for us ,the employers to help manage the business at hand,our respective countries. The very act of setting up this kind of system would stimulate industry and form many new industries. Public SERVANTS would then be subject to fines for missing data barring technical difficulty.
Public servants have no assumed right to privacy while on the job. This should already be in effect for any Servant that has the "authority" to use deadly force against its citizens"bosses". They are already watching us with our own money! Whats good for the goose they say!

Again my apologies if off topic!

Mods please take it from here!

reply to post by schrodingers dog


reatG Thread. It is a good feeling to know others see as I do. ATS is about people expressing their views of grovernment lies. I agree 100% with the video. AS we all know american government is attempting get their dirty little paws on internet. They say it is to bring faster connection. I have the fastest internet available and are quite pleased with it. What exactly do they believe they can improve? Perhaps sensorship like china? The video claims government cannot take our internet from us. however if they are planning know what makes us think they cant take it or sensor it? The internet is where we the people find truths. They need to eliminate our access to the truths. How could we stop the government from sensoring our internet? I truely want to know.

Wiki Update

With the talk of Anon these days, and after watching the opening post video again (for the first time since I made it), I was rather pleasantly surprised at how I could have easily substituted the word 'Anonymous' for the word 'Wikileaks' and sustain the validity of both the premise and the argument ... so I thought I'd shamelessly bump it as a reminder of what is really at stake. I hope you will forgive my indulgence, it isn't meant as an act of unwarranted self importance, but merely an attempt to frame the debate in terms which are often fleeting against an ever evolving backdrop.

Ultimately, as I stated in the video, there are two simple forces at play ... on one side there are those who wish to narrow the internet to reflect the limited freedoms we are left with in 'real' life, and on other those who who resist this grab, and wish to expand and reclaim the few additional freedoms we hold on the internet as the seed to demand them in said 'real' life.

Cheers!

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Thanks for the bump - and HI!

Rebump.